Aftermarket bolt ons vs OEM dispute

[tmontague]

After reading various car forums and what not over the past couple years when I became interested in modifying my car, I began to notice an argument consistently being made:

"If it actually proved to be beneficial wouldn't the manufacturer install in from the factory"


I thought I'd start a discussion on it to see what everyone's experience is.

The argument then maintains that the part in question therefore proves no benefit. I've seen this comment made for light weight crank pulleys, flywheels, air intakes, exhausts, oil grades etc. Generally they're made by people who haven't actually used them aftermarket parts or made these modifications themselves but seem to tow the same line as a reason not to.

I've always questioned that rhetoric and it never held much weight to me for a couple reasons:

1. Manufacturers have many variables to deal with that determine if something becomes installed from the factory. Performance is only one of these variables.

2. Emissions severely restrict the manufacturer from installing certain parts, or tuning an engine for more hp

3. Fuel mileage regulations (as well as the interest of the consumer demographic) limit these "performance" parts of modifications from factory

4. Noise limit is also another reason for certain factory builds

5. Driver comfort, many cars (especially the Yaris) do not come from the factory with a focus on performance. Meaning they are heavily on the comfort side of the spectrum which results in a hit on the performance side of things.

6. Engine reliability and longevity

These are not all of the factors but it is may of them. The argument; "if the factory decided not to install said part then it must not do much of anything" is circular reasoning at it's finest. Yes this argument may apply for certain engineering aspects of a car, but when it comes to aftermarket performance focused parts, many times it falls flat on its face.

Curious as to what others think, you now all know what i think

[ern-diz]

I'm not a wrench turner by any stretch of the imagination, but based on my experience, I think you hit the nail on the head.

There are going to be pros and cons with anything you do. The factory goes one route for a variety of reasons, many (if not all) you listed above, but an owner may prefer to go a different route, understanding there will be same trade-off's.

[NYC-SE]

Every decision made by any manufacturer is in some ways a compromise. What are the priorities for this product? Is it price, performance, reliability, efficiency, legal compliance, etc.? With most products it is a mix of priorities with no one area dominant. Even products that are designed to be "the best" involve comprise. How does one measure "best"? "Best" what? Best performance? Best reliability?

So yes you can modify your car to improve certain aspects of it. Perhaps your priorities are different than the manufacturer's. Having said that, just because an aftermarket parts exists does not automatically make it superior to the OEM manufacturer's solution, especially when taking cost into consideration.

[Kalispel]

I think that manufacturers aim to build the most consumer-appealing car that they can for any particular segment, while keeping costs firmly at or below $XX,XXX. That means cutting any corners/costs that they believe will be the least-noticed by consumers. As one example, that is probably why the 2015-2017 gen SE Yaris didn't have a $20-30 stainless-steel exhaust-tip as standard OEM equipment, even though it was standard on the 2012-2014 SE Probably the same thing with the rear bumper safety reflectors. Death by a thousand small cuts to save $XXXX of dollars, and hope the typical consumer doesn't notice (or care).

[justanotherdrunk]

Originally Posted by Kalispel

and hope the typical consumer doesn't notice (or care).

80-90% of people who drive are motorists not enthusiasts like people on this or any auto related site

for most people a car (vehicle) is just transpo

[tmontague]

Originally Posted by NYC-SE

So yes you can modify your car to improve certain aspects of it. Perhaps your priorities are different than the manufacturer's. Having said that, just because an aftermarket parts exists does not automatically make it superior to the OEM manufacturer's solution, especially when taking cost into consideration.

Absolutely. My issue in the op wasn't to do with the manufacturer, they will put out what they feel their market wants. My issue was people dismissing any aftermarket performance part because the manufacturer doesn't install it from the factory.

That argument is often used in the way of condemnation without investigation or as an excuse for ignorance of certain parts.

And yes, not all aftermarket performance parts will actually do anything. Some may actually make performance worse. Some cai's out there hurt performance with only that installed. That doesn't mean it won't benefit the engine if there are other bolt ons installed, but not everything will be better as you stated.

Every aftermarket performance part should be investigated for a realistic benefit for what the buyer wants and not only one stated by the aftermarket manufacturer. But on the same side of the coin, one shouldn't make blanket statements that those parts don't work simply because the manufaturer of the car didn't install it from factory.

[NYC-SE]

Agreed.

[SirDigby]

if it's a performance driven brand or model, it is more difficult to get good gains from aftermarket, unless there is a hierarchy of models. i.e. ford fiesta is down-tuned because it's close performance with Focus ST. it doesn't take much to make it just as fast/faster.
also, it's the emissions thing. companies like chevy/ford can build crappier cars with garbage performance AND millage because of their medium/heavy duty lines. other companies have stricter rules and have to choke out their cars to pass.
and yes, people suck, don't care about performance, don't care about driving, and usually the most important thing is:
"what color it is"
which they never know. I ask all the time, "what color is that?" I get "red," "blue," "green," or whatever. they haven't made "red" since 1932 or whatever. I want to hear, "it's Catalina Desert Rose!" or whatever....

[SirDigby]

companies want it built as quick and easy and cheaply as possible. performance is like the 5th or 8th most important thing. (most of the time)

[Kaotic Lazagna]

My thinking is cost is probably the biggest hurdle for OEM parts, especially on bread and butter models from each manufacturer. On specialty vehicles, they'd probably spend more to improve other aspects that that specialty model is geared towards since they won't produce as many of them as their bread and butter models; ergo can probably charge more overall for the car to make up for the increased price in OEM improved parts.

Then depending on the type of car it is (econobox, sports car, track-ready, etc), how the part would affect reliability would come into play. No matter what, if the part is related to emissions, they'll spend the money to make it work (which in turn may decrease performance).

[scratchpaddy]

Originally Posted by SirDigby

and yes, people suck, don't care about performance, don't care about driving, and usually the most important thing is:
"what color it is"
which they never know. I ask all the time, "what color is that?" I get "red," "blue," "green," or whatever. they haven't made "red" since 1932 or whatever. I want to hear, "it's Catalina Desert Rose!" or whatever....

I disagree that the general public cares about color. As long as it doesn't stand out, they're happy. "Colors" in a technical sense of the word make up just 27% of the cars on the road. The rest are shades of grey.

I'm interested in the car as a machine. If it's reliable, efficient, and easy to work on, I'm happy. Every car on the market today is more than fast and nimble enough for me. I love driving, and I love my car. I like it because it takes me places, reliably and cheaply.

Just because someone doesn't care about 0-60 times, or skidpad performance, doesn't mean they don't care at all. It just means they have different priorities. That's why there's an aftermarket.

[SirDigby]

sorry. i'm a psycho sometimes. I do care about color, or lack of. my last car I bought it new. I didn't care about color. I was indifferent about the color at first, but then I grew to loathe and despise the color. it was awful.
but i'd say more than 75% of motorists do not care about their car, maintenance or performance, and just use it as a transport....

[Lux]

Originally Posted by tmontague

"If it actually proved to be beneficial wouldn't the manufacturer install in from the factory"

I agree with you, absolutely, tmontague. This is the worst argument anybody could offer against aftermarket component design. Personally, I prefer genuine Toyota parts, where available. But, I will install aftermarket components only on the evidence of superior design, superior quality, and specific purpose.

Manufacturers need to contend with cost when developing an automobile. If the argument "Toyota would have made it standard from factory" were true, then EVERYBODY would be driving a TRD Vitz RS Turbo M or TRD Vitz RS GRMN because they are the flagship Yaris product to date.

If it were true, would everyone here truly want to pay the currency equivalent of $28'000 for a Yaris?

"If it actually proved to be beneficial wouldn't the manufacturer install in from the factory"

If maximum fuel economy, maximum battery capacity, and maximum cargo volume were the objective and most beneficial attributes of a Prius, then we would have only the Prius V. No Prius C. No Prius proper.

"If it actually proved to be beneficial wouldn't the manufacturer install in from the factory"

Then all Camry buyers would only be offered the Camry XLE Limited or Camry XLE Hybrid. No base model and no other trim option.

"If it actually proved to be beneficial wouldn't the manufacturer install in from the factory"

Then all Dodge Ram pickup trucks will be the flagship super duty 3500 Cummins 4WD dual rear tyres.

This is where that argument breaks down. It's not plausible because the product would be unaffordable, impractical, and/or unsafe.

So, what drives the industry?
Every single technological development in the automobile industry shall be traced to two governing attributes: safety and emissions.

Fuel injection was to control exhaust emissions. Restraints, air bags, collision prediction/avoidance, active head lamp yaw and pitch control, active suspension damper control, anti-lock brake system, and so forth satisfy progressive safety regulations. Three-way catalysing exhaust convertor, LED lighting, electric power steering were for emission reduction. Even sunvisors were for safety. The list will never end.

Purpose of aftermarket?
My abusive driving has destroyed the factory engine torsional engine mount. I imported the Japan-only optional TRD engine mount and then destroyed that in 3 months. So, now, I am importing the Beatrush engine mount from Japan made of 90-durometer replaceable polyurethane cartridge. It is a superior design with superior longevity and superior serviceability (replaceable) for the purpose of inhibiting engine roll under abusive load.

I pressed in Whiteline polyurethane control arm bushings to sharpen up my steering precision for race use. The factory bushings are too compliant and the TRD optional bushings are not firm enough for my BFGoodrich R1 race slick tyres. A side effect is more road feedback; although I would argue that this feedback is how a real car should feel due to the numb nature of electric motor-assisted power steering.

Factory components (and even TRD options) are not enough for my vehicle's environment.

Consequences
Bear in mind, though, that every modification, every upgrade (or downgrade) part, carries a consequence -- often undesirable or unintended. In the case of the polyurethane control arm bushings, more shock load from launching is transmitted through the driveline and into the torsional engine mount instead of being eaten up in the control arm's compliance bushings. This is how repeated engine mount failure occurs under extreme use.

Evidence should always be considered. Not all aftermarket is good. Wheel bearings from China will never match Japanese-made Koyo bearings from Japan. Even look at aftermarket coil-over-damper suspension kits on the market.... The good ones will include, or offer, Koyo upper strut bearings.

[shepd]

Hold on there... air bags (1974 Olds Toronado) and ABS (1971 Chrysler Imperial) were offered on vehicles a LONG time before the government even thought about making them mandatory. And, at least in Canada, they still aren't 40+ years after their introduction. The same applies to seat belts (1950 Nash Airflyte); they were an option for many vehicles for decades before they were mandatory.

Even electric power steering was available for decades before emissions controls clamped down hard enough for most manufacturers to add it. In fact, it took 2 decades before it went from the first car it was offered in to being a standard item (1988 Suzuki Cervo).

The lowly sunvisor (1924 Ford Model T) was one of the first pieces of safety equipment offered without government suggestion. It was offered about a half-century before it became law.

Catalytic converters are definitely a government item, though, considering they reduce mileage and performance (even if it is only marginally) and cost extra. Though with today's preference for "green" products, I think some manufacturers would offer them as an optional extra for the feel-good attributes they might give the eco-conscious driver.

As for the LED headlights thing, I can't give an opinion one way or another on it. :)

The truth is, the auto industry, when it comes to safety, works hard to provide options to customers well before those options become mandated. In fact, I'd posit that the options become mandated because it makes the government look good to make it a legal requirement to have something most cars already offer anyways, that costs so little few manufacturers would complain about installing it (Traction control is one of those things--most manufacturers offer ABS, and TCS is simply a software update).

[tmontague]

I would argue that many "safety" features being offered now are a way to make customers spend more and a way for manufacturers to make a larger profit margin. Things like blind spot detection etc. cost a ton, so does their repair. Very unessessary for someone who drives with their head out of their ass. But yet it's harder and harder to find cars without these forced on options that make so many buyers giddy to brag to all their friends. Too bad they forget to mention to all their friends about the 84 month payment plan they had to take just to afford the thing.

But hey, if you're a manufacturer you either build crap cars that fall apart after 120k km (ahem* Ford, Chevy, Chrysler) or you build them to last but throw in a bunch of "safety" gimmicks to ensure high profits since the car will last a long time.

The Ontario e test does a great job of keeping many fine running, non polluted and safe vehicles off the road.

[shepd]

Actually, that's another government cash grab. The e-test was cancelled in BC once it was proven to have only a 5% success rate. In Ontario it has the same success rate, but the government is raking in a ton of profit from the program, so don't expect it to disappear.

[zoidberg444]

They changed the rules on the MOT recently coming into effect in the next year or so to make it impossible to pass unless all the warning lights are off on the dashboard. Given how complex some of these newer vehicles are with multiple "safety" and "driver assistance" systems, dozens of computer modules and miles of wiring to make it all work i can see a lot more cars being scrapped between 6-8 years old because a sensor goes bad or a wire breaks. The repairs will cost more than just getting another car.

[shepd]

Most of the additional items require some high end tools (or pirated tools) to check on.

Why not cut out the LEDs instead? ;)